Centerfield

Lugar-Obama is an extension of PSI and Nunn-Lugar, and really isn't that big a deal. Just one of eight bills expanding and funding PSI efforts. PSI and Nunn-Lugar began long before Obama reached the Senate. (Not that it's a bad thing...)

I think Coburn-Obama is a much better example, and one that will have much more reaching long-term effects.

Obama's still a puppy. The lack of track record is why he gets played up as a charismatic "rock star." It's nice to see him stacking up some things to point at--the expansion of Pell Grants has limited audience appeal.

Posted by: Tully at December 17, 2006 01:27 PM

It would seem to me that after the current administration is out of office, a President that is capable of building coalitions would be a good thing. I'm just saying.

Don't sell Dubya short. He might become a good coalition builder out of need right now.

It might be a center-right one, picking off persuadable Democrats, rather than the center-left ones you seem to prefer, but he's capable of doing a domestic Coalition of the Willing.

Posted by: Mark Byron at December 17, 2006 10:16 PM

This is indeed a huge victory over all the American politicians who were in favor of allowing terrorists to have things like shoulder-fired missiles....LOL

Posted by: bk at December 18, 2006 09:11 AM

Well, and the other thing is that if you're touting this as proof of Obama's "coalition-building" skills, I think it pales in comparison to the "coalition-building" record of a certain Senator from Arizona, who demonstrated that he could cross the aisle with Russ Feingold on campaign finance reform, not to mention with thirteen other Senators from both parties in the "Gang of 14" that broke the judiciary stalemate.

Not saying "coalition-building" is bad- I actually think it would be great to have a little more of it in the next Administration- I just don't see how one can tout this as a significant event, when Senator McCain has clearly demonstrated far greater ability to build coalitions on matters of much more divisive nature. Whether you agree with what those coalitions did or not is a different story, of course.

Posted by: Bobby at December 18, 2006 10:16 AM

"I'm more strongly in favor of this thing no one really disagrees about" is one of the the flavors of politics I most despise.

Bobby, I agree with both your points. McCain has been able to get together coalitions on divisive issues on multiple occasions. If only the quality of what was actually achieved in those cases were a little bit less mixed. I say that as a McCain fan who is not as impressed with him these days as I used to be.

Posted by: bk at December 18, 2006 10:54 AM

The lack of track record is why he gets played up as a charismatic "rock star."

That kind of combination helped get John Kennedy elected (with some help from the mob and his daddy, of course).

I think the lack of a long term voting record in the Senate is going to help Obama, not hurt him.

Posted by: carla at December 18, 2006 12:45 PM

Alright, alright, not that big of a deal, I get it, but I wouldn't pass it off as nothing. IMO, the crticism from the left of Obama is mostly that (1) he doesn't do anything but raise money, and (2) he doesn't accomplish or even push for anything big. I would argue that although this isn't a controversial issue, it is important, and would also point out that sometimes governing means doing the little things. Furthermore, I SAID it was a start to bigger and better things or at least tried to imply it. I didn't call it a "significant event." You guys are often too cynical for your own good.

Well, and the other thing is that if you're touting this as proof of Obama's "coalition-building" skills, I think it pales in comparison to the "coalition-building" record of a certain Senator from Arizona, who demonstrated that he could cross the aisle with Russ Feingold on campaign finance reform, not to mention with thirteen other Senators from both parties in the "Gang of 14" that broke the judiciary stalemate.

I don't disagree with a word of that and have not even made up my mind who of the two, if either were to win their party's nomination, I would vote for. Although I will say that while I think McCain is doing well with the Iraq issue, or at least better than most, his no talking to Iraq or Syria in any way, shape, or form approach isn't exactly what I would call diplomatic.

Posted by: Mathew at December 18, 2006 12:53 PM

Carla!

Is that THE Carla!

Where have you been!

Posted by: Mathew at December 18, 2006 12:55 PM

Woops, those were supposed to be question marks...

Posted by: Mathew at December 18, 2006 01:14 PM

Hi Carla!

That kind of combination helped get John Kennedy elected (with some help from the mob and his daddy, of course).

Kennedy had six years in the House (1946-1952) and eight in the Senate (1952-1960) before he ran for President. He most certainly had a track record--twelve years more of in-office track record than Obama (2004-current) has. For example, Kennedy helped gut the Civil Rights Act of 1957 before he voted to pass it, by voting for the Jury Trial Amendment. His biggest boost came from the unions and the Daley machine. Close enough to mob, I guess. And yeah, Daddy calling in a lifetime of chips.

I'm still applauding Coburn-Obama, and I was happy to see the Pell Grant boost Obama sponsored go through. But I like candidates to actually have more than a couple-four years of DC under their belts--or some serious executive experience--before they start looking good to me for the Oval Office. And he doesn't have that yet. What he's got is a fresh face, and a lack of major public stumbles since elected to the Senate. And some stuff passed that he may have had hand-fed to him for PR grooming. Give him time.

Much the same with John Edwards. A career getting rich as a tort attorney and one fairly undistinguished Senate term doesn't make it in my book. Anyone can talk pretty and have their speechwriters play the polls. Flash is easy. But where's the substance?

Posted by: Tully at December 18, 2006 01:30 PM

John Fund covers my line of thinking quite well--and predicts Obama won't run this round.

Mr. Obama knows that Hillary Clinton is a vulnerable front-runner. But he also knows that her side will haul out the brass knuckles to stop him. "Just a little while ago, he was in Springfield worrying about license-tag fees," is how one Hillary advisor told Newsweek magazine described one of the attack lines that would be used against him. "There's a fine line between an empty suit and an empty vessel into which people want to pour their hopes," says one national political journalist.

Heh. If he's dim enough to think that sheer hype and personality qualifies him for the office, he's probably not qualified. Nor has he yet faced anything like a real campaign. Bobby Rush beat him silly in 2000, and he had his seat basically handed to him in 2004. The old pols would tear him to shreds in a 2008 run. By 2012 he might have the chops to handle it.

Posted by: Tully at December 18, 2006 01:46 PM

Much the same with John Edwards. A career getting rich as a tort attorney and one fairly undistinguished Senate term doesn't make it in my book. Anyone can talk pretty and have their speechwriters play the polls. Flash is easy. But where's the substance?

George W. Bush had four years of Executive experience before winning the Presidency. I could be mistaken, but didn't you vote for him twice for the job, Tully?

Its incredibly difficult for anyone with a long legislative record to win the Presidency. There are simply too many votes that can be easily twisted around to suit a political bludgeon.

Its easier for governors (and perhaps mayors, we'll see how Giuliani fares) because they haven't got a legislative voting record--merely a black and white bill signing/veto record.

In terms of the Kennedy-mafia connection, there is evidence that mobster Sam Giancana was involved in the efforts to get Kennedy elected to the presidency. The Church Committee discovered that messages were sent from Giancana to Kennedy during the 1960 election.

Yeah Mathew..its the real me.

I've been rather busy. I started a new blog in February that deals with politics in Oregon and its had a rather successful start. Along with PK, my job and my mom duties, my plate is a bit full.

Posted by: carla at December 18, 2006 01:49 PM

George W. Bush had four years of Executive experience before winning the Presidency. I could be mistaken, but didn't you vote for him twice for the job, Tully?

And as we have said over and over again, the Governor of Texas isn't exactly an executive, but more or less a ribbon cutter who can veto bills and introduce a budget once in a while. One could have made the same argument for Bush as they will make for Hillary in that they have both been a round the block with close family members. I for one am wondering what the American people will think of 32 years of either a Bush or a Clinton on a national ticket if someone points it out to them. Doesn't that only happen in Saudi Arabia or something?

Good to hear from you, Carla.

Posted by: Mathew at December 18, 2006 01:58 PM

If he's dim enough to think that sheer hype and personality qualifies him for the office, he's probably not qualified.

I think you are underestimating the intelligence of the man, and the rest of that comment is basically the conventional wisdom. I think people are getting excited about Obama because he is unconventional, meaning that he is capable of doing things that under most circumstances others aren't. I fully realize that we could be drinking kool-aid, but if what you say is true I think it says something about the state our nation is in that people are so easily duped by even a little glimmer of hope.

Posted by: Mathew at December 18, 2006 02:02 PM

Nevermind, I misread your comment. You are saying he isn't dim and will not run. I get it now. Remember when another black public official who preached bipartisanship and a calm demeanor wrote a book and had everyone thinking he would run for President? I wonder how Colin Powell is enjoying retirement? I think that is entirely possible although I am not sure there will be a better time for Obama, considering Carla's comments that the longer he stays in the Senate the bigger target he becomes.

Posted by: Mathew at December 18, 2006 02:12 PM

Good points about the challenge of a young guy notwithstanding Tully, I think Obama's opponents will have to come up with much better than a clever line about license plate tags. If Obama stumbles seriously on an important issue, such flings might stick. But otherwise, they are bound to make the flinger look mean-spirited and small-minded and lacking in substance.

So Hillary better go through surrogates if her team wants to traffic in such stuff.

Posted by: bk at December 18, 2006 02:58 PM

Yep, the longer he stays in the Senate the bigger the easier it is to misrepresent his votes. But they'll run his state legislative record against him anyway, and it's pure liberal. He can actually improve on that.

I voted for Bush both times because IMHO the alternatives sucked even worse, Carla. And I said so at the time. Though after four years of on-the-job training you can no longer hold a lack of experience against someone. I have yet to see an ideal candidate on the ticket, by my own definitions, and I can't vote for what's not there, just for the least-bad of what is there.

Heck, I'd vote for Obama in 2008 without a qualm at all if my alternative were, say, Pat Buchanan. Right now (as I have said so often) I'd be happy if there simply were no Dole, Bush, or Clinton on the 2008 ballot. Haven't seen a ballot without one or more of those names since Nixon/Agnew, 34 years ago. IOW, not in my entire voting lifetime.

You are saying he isn't dim and will not run.

Pretty much, Mathew. Not for Prez anyway, except maybe for convention bargaining "chips." Many people run simply to gather power and bargaining position within the party. They know they won't win, but they can boost their careers and positioning and accumulate political assets.

But Obama'd be an appealing pick for VP slot on the ticket, and he may well be positioning himself for that. Veeps get a lot less pounding--hooking up a "fresh blood" Veep candidate with an experienced Prez candidate is common enough, and often works. But Prez? He'd likely get gutted in the primaries. Hillary would lead the wrecking crew, and she's spent well over a decade lining up her support team for the intramural scrum.

Posted by: Tully at December 18, 2006 03:04 PM

I don't think our antipathy toward Senators running for President has as much to do with voting records as with a desire to see that the candidates has the skills actually needed to be President.

While past experience as Governor is no guarantee that the candidate has the type of management and persuasion skills needed by a President (witness Jimmy Carter), the fact is that the job of being President and the job of being Senator take very different skills.

Managing the White House and the entire Executive Branch is no easy task. One must be an expert and knowing what to delegate and what not to delegate. One must find staff who will carry out your wishes, but who have enough sense not to take your every random musing as gospel without checking back in. You must know how to manage people, people with abnormally large egos, very well, coaxing their best performances out of them, and keeping them focused on the bigger picture. You must assemble this team (remembering that most of them will have ulterior personal ambitions in conflict with your desires) and use them to translate big-picture, high-level policy concepts down into concrete policy in a format which will actually affect the lives of ordinary citizens.

Unless they bring prior managerial experience into office with them, Senators do not gain such experience. They manage a fairly small staff, and the staff themselves are not "players" in the game, at least not nearly to the extent that top white house aides and cabinet secretaries are.

They're very different job skills, President and Senator. I generally want someone who has demonstrated some capability with the kind of skills necessary for the job being sought.

Posted by: PatHMV at December 18, 2006 03:18 PM

Pat, I don't disagree with any of those points. Time as a governor or executive looks good on the resume of any prez candidate, (so long as they actually did a good job, of course).

Still, I think a good argument could be made for someone with legislative experience, since a President is inevitably going to need to work with congress. So, for example, when Perot ran, people argued that his executive experience was too autocratic to be usefully applicable to the Presidency. IOW, he'd be frustrated that he wasn't elected King. All it will take is one decent ex-senator as President to serve as an example for this hypothesis to gain some credence.

Of course, it all still goes back to the point about how each American voter is going to make and trust their own measure of each candidate. We wonks can talk all we want about how everyone ought to make such measurements, but we'd be well served to wonder about how all the non-wonks really will construct their measuring sticks. I really really wonder how much a lack of experience is going to count in the current climate. Only time will tell.

Posted by: bk at December 18, 2006 04:00 PM

All it will take is one decent ex-senator as President to serve as an example for this hypothesis to gain some credence.

Well, there were those Harding, Roosevelt (state senate), Truman, Kennedy, Jonhnson and Nixon guys, but they're SO last century....

Posted by: Tully at December 18, 2006 05:48 PM

Now, Tully, Nixon and Johnson had executive experience as Veep before being elected to the presidency.

Granted, being Veep is a far cry from the demands of being President, but you do have a substantial staff still. Of course, how much experience you really get in the job depends on how much the boss man delegates to you. I know Ike didn't think that much of Nixon, but I have no idea how well JFK and LBJ got along.

Posted by: PatHMV at December 18, 2006 07:45 PM

What, you're not going to give Truman credit for his Veep time too? :-) I thought I was being blatant enough about suggesting that Obama was positioning for that Veep apprenticeship as a means of avoiding the Senator problem.

Of course, with JFK & LBJ you had two Senators getting the whole thing at once.

Posted by: Tully at December 18, 2006 09:39 PM

Oh, and FDR didn't think much at all of Truman either, and left him on the outside as much as he could. If you were wondering.

Posted by: Tully at December 18, 2006 09:40 PM